游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

点评4种玩家类型的个性及其对立面

发布时间:2013-06-24 16:21:40 Tags:,,,,

作者:Alfons Liebermann

本文内容是我们同Andrzej Marczewski以及(直接与)Richard Bartele进行的讨论所得结果,这两者都曾研究玩家类型学这一问题。除此之外,业内还出现了Nicole Lazzaro提出的趣味类型理论,“4个关键2种趣味”。

我们所提出的并非自己原创的模型,只是一些现存玩家类型的扩展,并增加了一些自己的经验和理论推测。

1.玩家类型学的存在需求

它的优势在于针对一个反应系统(AI)使用这种类型学。你可以借此允许系统分别回应不同的玩家心理。虽然这类定制化选项还很少,不只是因为它需要一些复杂的编程技术,还因为它要求人们详细描述极具弹性的玩家个性模型,这一模型不但包含基本和已知的玩家类型,还包括其中的大量微妙差别。因此,正如Richard Bartle之前所言,这一分类系统的关键问题并不在于列出玩家心理,而在于良好的理论基础。

这里我们可以回顾一下法国心理分析学家Jacques Lacan评论。Lacan曾指出大学演讲的另一面是种癔病,这表现于两个原本应该毫无关联的环节交织在一起的时候。

也许有人会更直接指出:动机正起源于人们所捍卫事物——正是这种冲突组成了游戏的核心。

如果你去看看与这个背景相左的模型,就会发现单个玩家心理并不起源于特定的原型,但它指出了可能具有多种形式的冲突(心理学坐标描述了其主导因素)。

2.关于渴望的坐标

gamer types(from gamasutra)

gamer types(from gamasutra)

我们有两个轴线 :从右到左是一个代表个人和集体这两个极端的轴线。它反映了玩家更愿意让自己服从于集合意志,还是喜欢自主行事的情况。也许有人会据此划分多人玩家vs单人玩家游戏的玩家关系,但这种方法很容易产生误解。

关于“政治家”这一类型的代表或许就是《魔兽世界》用户群体中的领袖,这种看法是一个很大的误解。某人是否属于集体主义者,这与其个人社交举措无关。这一点很关键,尽管“政治家”会将自己视为一个集体秩序的代表,一个实体的形象代言人。这表明战略玩家这一身份,才是主导其身份认知的因素。

这里就要提到第二个轴线。它用于区分严格和松散的玩法,介于规则与破坏规则之间,也可以说是传统与创新之间。

显然战略游戏玩家会选择服从规则并排斥无序行为(游戏邦注:包括随机性、机遇、敌对部队的入侵)。

尽管这种冲突描绘了他的内在心理及其青睐的意图,要依靠重复和积累,法律的持续重复,以及持续发展的必要性。全能的力量正是驱使玩家的幻想,他所得到的结果就是自己在游戏中所处的地位。

鉴于这种心理,我们可以看到图表中“政治家”的对角线所指向的正是他的对映体“自由主义者”,也就是他实际上试图禁止的情况。“自由主义者”藐视社会秩序,无视系统规则,这使他注定成为“政治家”的敌人。

“自由主义者”最爱冒险,他并不喜欢重复,但却追求独特的体验。他无视规则,试图打破常规。追求刺激正是他的兴奋来源。

他渴望自由,因此无暇顾及社会秩序。他会为省事而选择捷径,是一个积极分子,是具有美感和精明的先驱,但却没有什么追随者。

在他看来,系统构成了一个自然甚至是个性化的对手。但这个系统却像磁铁一样,神奇地吸引他。背叛系统是一种巨大的创新,是其独特的满足感来源。

现在让我们看看左上方象限的“成就者”。他会将精通掌握某个机器的用法视为终极目标。如果我们将其置到“自由主义者”象限中,可以将他们视为近亲,因为这两者都怀有极强的个人主义。

而“成就者”和“自由主义者”二者的区别就在于,前者更倾向于在规则的框架之内行事。他无意背叛系统。相反,他志在主宰系统。获取高分,展示技能,可以让他攀向系统的最高峰。而展示自己的伟大成就无疑就是他追求的目标。

战略玩家总沉浸于获得超人力量的幻想中,“成就者”却更为机器的幻想所着迷:他渴望获得单独的绝对力量。在电脑游戏术语中,我们可以将其视为阻止大批敌人冲击的“自我”射击者——乱世中的独立居民。

他同“自由主义者”的共同点在于自由漫游的态度,但他也不乏与“政治家”对应的行为。他也热衷于重复和积累,这种持续的重复可提升他的力量,而积累则可让他完善技艺。虽然他在游戏中的目标是完美控制环境,其实际意象却是一个孤独的斗士(游戏邦注:在游戏世界之外,他可能并不会喜欢这种评价)。

看看对角线,其对手一目了然——“社交玩家”,这类玩家并不在乎精通掌握系统规则,也无意追求玩游戏的高超技巧。事实上,我们很容易看出这两者区别好比是采用高科技的射击游戏与Zynga游戏等产品的差异。

“社交玩家”具有内在随意性。游戏只是他打发时间的一种方式。这里我们又看到一种矛盾:战略玩家,“政治家”催生了完美的社会秩序,而“社交玩家”却唤醒了自己实际所缺乏的人际关系。这两个不相干的领域在此发生重叠,这也正是“政治家”与“社交玩家”为何落于同一侧象限的原因。

我们还可以看出他与“自由主义者”的不同之处。“自由主义者”追求的是即兴玩法,而“社交玩家”只对社交标准、简单、容易掌握、可预测的情况感兴趣。

尽管如此,“社交玩家”的玩法并非来源于社会交换,而是自己表现杰出的需求。《FarmVille》玩家会花钱购买拖拉机增加自己的产量,提高自己的地位,由此可见他重视的并非合作而是竞争。这里我们又可以看到他的对立面:“成就者”要与自己的NPC敌人较劲,而“社交玩家”却把自己的同伴玩友视为NPC。

3.微妙差别

显然这4种类型极少孤立存在,我们从中可以看到微妙的心理差异和多种玩法行为。

同轴度意味着我们可将心理区域视为一个映射,而距离则可理解为亲密关系的梯度。比这种空间对齐方式更重要的是,每个玩家类型都无法在脱离其对手的情况下解释说明。

可见游戏像电影故事一样向我们揭示了一个逻辑:如果你不知道人物的内心冲突,就不法真正了解一个角色。冲突才是关键。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

4 Temperaments – Some Remarks on Gamer Typology

by Alfons Liebermann

The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra’s game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It’s easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra’s home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.

The following thoughts are an offspring of a discussion we had with Andrzej Marczewski and – indirectly – Richard Bartle, both of whom have dealt with the problem of a gamer typology. In addition – once again mediated by Andrzej Marczewski – there are traces of Nicole Lazzaro’s typology of fun, “4 keys 2 Fun”. Although one cannot find her marks anymore, it is crucial for the underlying reward system.

Presenting our model we do not claim originality but just an extension of some already elaborated gamer typologies. What we can add though is our experience as well as certain theoretical assumptions that guide us.

Gamer Typology

1. Why there is a need for a gamer typology

The biggest advantage is that using such a typology for a reaction system (an AI). On this basis you allow a system to individually respond to different gamer psychologies. Although a common request, this kind of customization is somewhat rare, not because it implies some sophisticated programming but because one has to elaborate a highly flexible model of gamer temperaments, a model that does not cover basic and known prototypes but also the multitude of nuances. Therefore – as Richard Bartle rightfully pointed out – the crucial question of such a classification system does not lie in the listing of possible gamer psychologies but in a sound theoretical foundation.

Here a remark of the famous French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan was inspiring. Lacan once noted that the other side of the university discourse is hysteria, and that signification arises where two presumably unlinked signifying chains glide past each other.

One may put it more bluntly: motivation is fed exactly by the things people fight with – and it is this very conflict that becomes the core of the game.

If one reads the model against this background one realizes that the respective gamer psychology is not derived from a certain prototype, but that it points to a conflict which may have many forms (and in which the psychological axes describe the dominant forces).

2. The axes of desire

We have two axes: From the right to the left we have an axis that signifies the polarity between the individual and the collective. It reflects the question as to what extent a gamer entrusts himself to a collective order or whether he feels obliged to act on his own account. One could be tempted to derive certain gamer affinities towards multi-player vs single-player games – but this is an approach that could easily lead to misinterpretations.

The conclusion at least that the POLITICIAN could be identified with the leader of a World of Warcraft cohort would be a gross misunderstanding. Whether or not somebody refers to a collectivist mindset has nothing to do with the respective social practice. It is essential though that the POLITICIAN conceives of himself as a representative of a collective order, a corporate identity so to speak. This reveals him as a strategy gamer who – from his god’s perspective – is supervising his realm.

Here the second axis gains importance. It is oscillating between strictly ordered and ad-libbing gameplay, between rules and breaking the rules, or if you prefer: between tradition and innovation.

It is evident that the player of a strategy game opts for the rule (i.e. for law and order) and that he abhors the irregular: randomness, chance, the intrusion of hostile units.

Nevertheless this conflict describes his interior map as well as it profiles his preferred means. He relies on repetition and accumulation, the perpetual repetition of the law, and at the same time on the necessity of steady growth. The phantasm that drives the gamer is omnipotence – and his reward the resulting status.

Given this short psychology the diagonal points to the POLITICIAN’s perfect antipode, hence the reality that he actually tries to ban. This is the appearance of the FREE SPIRIT – and the double break of the axes. Disrespecting the social order and neglecting the rules reveal him as the politician’s true antagonist.

The FREE SPIRIT’s kick is the adventure. He does not care for repetition but is striving for the unique moment. Ignoring the rules he tries to outdo them instead. That is his thrill: the rush of adrenaline, instant karma, paradise now.

His desire of freedom leaves no room for social arrangements. In case of doubt he opts for the shortcut. Enthusiast that he is, he constitutes an aesthetic and sophisticated avantgarde – without followers though.

From his point of view the system constitutes a natural, even personalized adversary. The system however (that you can depict as a dark imago, a punishing father) acts as a magnet, attracting him magically. To betray the system is a big motivation – and in case of success, a respective satisfaction.

Now let us focus on the upper left square. Here we have the ACHIEVER, him who takes the mastery of the machine as his very objective. If we put him on the side of the FREE SPIRIT, we could take them for relatives – and rightfully so, since both of them lean towards the pole of individualism.

What differentiates the ACHIEVER from the FREE SPIRIT is that he prefers to play within the rules. He is not interested in betraying the system. On the contrary: he is determined to dominate it. The highscore, his skill­fullness, shows him at the height of the system, and HIS awesomeness is actually what he is looking for.

While the strategy gamer is indulging in fantasies of omnipotence, the ACHIEVER is obsessed by the phantasm of the machine: he yearns for the individually sensed absolute power. In the terminology of the computer games we can identify him as the ego-shooter that stops the surging horde: the last independent, the dweller of an apocalyptic world that made warfare his home.

What he has in common with the FREE SPIRIT is the free roaming attitude, but his favored strategems correspond to the POLITICIAN’s behaviour. Like him he is obsessed with repetition and accumulation. The continuous repetition helps him to improve, the accumulation serves his as an imprint of boosted competence. Whereas the objective of the games resides in the perfect control of the environment, his imago depicts him as grandiose lone fighter (an appraisal he might not able able to enjoy outside the game).

Taking again the diagonale into focus his anatgonist becomes visible: It is the SOCIAL GAMER gamer that does no care about mastery (ruling the sytem) nor struggles for a considerable excellence in playing the game. In fact this conflict can easily be discerned as the gap between high-tech shooter games and their poor equivalents à la Zynga.

The SOCIAL GAMER is casual by heart. Gaming is just a way of killing time: a dialogue without dialogue. Once again we face a paradox: Whereas the strategy gamer, the POLITICIAN, evokes a perfect social order, the SOCIAL GAMER invokes the human contact he is actually missing. In this invoca­tion of society the disparate areas overlap – and that’s why the POLITICIAN and the SOCIAL GAMER are located on the same side.

Here we can see the difference to the FREE SPIRIT. Whereas the former is looking for the state of emergency, the SOCIAL GAMER is just interested in social standards, simple, easy-to-learn, predictable constellations.

Nevertheless the SOCIAL GAMER’s approach is not inspired by the need of social exchange, but by his will to excel. The farmville gamer that buys himself a tractor and augments his capacities and position thereby, demonstrates that his currency is not cooperation, bus competition instead. Once again we can see the repercussion of the antipode: While the ego-shooter stuggles with his NPC-adversaries, the social gamer degrades his co-gamers to NPCs.

3. Nuances

It is evident that these 4 prototypes may seldomly be found in their cristalline form. Instead we encounter psychological nuances and a variety of behaviour instead.

The axiality permits to understand the psychological field as a map, where distance may be translated as a gradient for kinship. More important than this spatial alignment though (which is ideal for implementation) is the fact that each gamer prototype cannot be explained by itself but only through his antagonist.

In this sense the absent part of the field is ever-present – and should be understood as a key for the gamer psychology.

Hence the game reveals the logics that cinematographic narration has taught us: You will not understand a character unless you know about its inner conflicts. It’ all about conflict, stupid!(source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: